A number of important snags and stumbling
blocks lie in the way of a marine reserve at Great Barrier Island, as applied
for by the Department of Conservation. In any marine reserve application,
the adjacent land owners, the local bodies, the local fishermen and affected
Government Bodies are those that need to be considered most. But all these
have very serious and real objections. Logically, and based on all available
evidence, the Application should fail.

The Mabey Family is angered about bribes to local land owners. Read
their submission. (on this page)

The Auckland City Council distances itself: Read their submission.
(on this page)

The Marine Transport Authority objects on many valid points. Read
their submission. (on this page)

We, as adjoining, long term landowners to the proposed area totally
Object to the Application for a Marine Reserve for the following reasons.

It will adversely affect our right to recreationally sustenance fish as
our property is right in the middle of the proposed area. The Mabey
family has resided here & fished these waters for five generations
& fresh fish is a big part of our diet.

No other forms of Marine Protection have been investigated by Department
of Conservation. There has just been 'tunnel vision' for a no take
reserve. There are other mechanisms to achieve Marine Protection, including
Mataitai which we believe would deliver far better Marine protection &
conservation as the people of Great Barrier decide the rules, over time
as required.

A Marine Reserve will affect the tourism business interests that we run
as 95% of our clients are attracted because of the ability to catch a fish
for the table. People will not come all the way to the Barrier at
considerable cost just to look. A recent survey done by a local business
shows a significant loss of income to the north if a reserve were to go
ahead as many of the visiting boaties that come now would go elsewhere.

There has been an overwhelming public rejection of the current proposal,
both locally and off-Island. The people of the Barrier soundly rejected
the application at a recent public Meeting (over 90% still opposed) and
Department of Conservation still claim they have solid support which is
obviously incorrect.

The proposed area is a de-facto Marine Reserve (apart from Commercial Fishing)
as weather governs access. Locking out recreational fishers is not
the answer as their impact is minimal.

Of real concern to our family is the damage done to our credibility on
page 20 of the application document. Never did we ask for a concession,
this was DoC's way of trying to buy our support as we have always objected
to the marine reserve proposal. We have been bombarded with accusations
of 'doing deals' with DoC ever since the release of the Application document.
We would have never imagined being treated like this.

All members of our family submitted in 2003 opposing the Marine reserve
proposal. We believe the submission questionnaire published with the proposal
document was unbalanced & 'loaded'. Our opposition to the reserve should
have been noted in the Application document.

We believe that the time has come for a coordinated and integrated approach
to marine protection for the waters of Great Barrier. This one dimensional
marine reserve application fails to achieve marine protection for the following
reasons.

It ignores the rights of the people of the Barrier to manage their resources

It ignores the wishes of the community (including the boating community)
to be involved in that management

The consultation process ignored the boating community

The Application does not have the widespread public support needed for
effective marine protection to occur.

The complete closure of 50% of the east coast of Great Barrier does nothing
to protect the balance - if anything it accelerates the demise of the balance

The attitude of DoC denies the all important involvement and "buy in" from
the various communities

It fails to address any real threats with meaningful solutions

Its rigid nature fails the obvious need for flexibility, over time

In summary, we are not opposed to the concept of Marine Protection,
but totally object to this current Marine Reserve Application for the above
reasons.

The Mabey Family
Mabey Road
PO Box 36
Okiwi
Great Barrier Island

09 4290132
bertramblue@xtra.co.nz

Great Barrier Marine Reserve
ApplicationObjection by Auckland City Council1 October 2004

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on the Department‚s
Application for a marine reserve on the north-east cost of Great Barrier
Island.

I note that this application is a continuation of the consultation undertaken
by the Department in March 2003 and I acknowledge that the Department has
broadly addressed many of the issues raised in Auckland City's previous
submission to the March 2003 Discussion Document.

Auckland City is not able to support the Department's Aotea Marine Reserve
Application as it has significant reservations and concerns that do need
to be addressed before Council can support the Reserve application. Auckland
City‚s reservations and concerns are detailed below.

Relationship to the development of a Strategic Plan for the Hauraki
GulfIn September 2003 the Hauraki Gulf Forum considered two reports, the
first, prepared by Auckland City, outlined the need to consider strategically
integrating and balancing the protection and use of the Hauraki Gulf's
marine reserve environment. The second report prepared jointly by the Department
and MFish set out a process for development of a strategic plan for the
Gulf. The Hauraki Gulf Forum adopted the recommendations in both reports.

Council is seeking a systematic approach to the selection of marine
protection sites based on scientific research using set criteria while
balancing wider social, economic, cultural and environmental considerations.
This approach enables a wider use of protection measures such as the creation
of marine reserves and the application of fishery management tools to enable
site specific protection measures to be applied to particular marine circumstances.

Auckland City supports the development of an over all plan for the provision
of marine protected areas within the Gulf to ensure:

A more systematic approach is taken to marine site selection;

The full "tool box"‚ of marine protective mechanisms could be used to protect
the marine resources or habitats while achieving more appropriate social,
economic cultural and environmental outcomes;

A clear direction and focus is provided for in the future implementation
and management of marine protected areas;

There was more buy-in from the community in terms of local communities
taking ownership of their local marine protected areas;

Better integrated management of marine resources and the allocation of
marine space was achieved; and

The community's marine protection efforts could then be focused to those
sites selected through the identification process.

In addition, Council notes that the Marine Reserves Bill proposes a range
of marine management tools and the better integration of marine reserves
protection with other existing marine tools and mechanisms. Auckland
City considers that this Bill, together with a strategic plan for the provision
of marine protected areas within the Gulf will provide a more comprehensive
and targeted range of protection mechanisms for the Hauraki Gulf. In doing
so it will create an effective balance between management and protection
of marine environments and community expectations.

In acknowledging that there should be a strategic approach to marine
reserve planning, Auckland City would prefer the Department to postpone
its Aotea Marine Reserve application and to reassess the suitability of
the site once a plan has been developed for marine protected areas within
the Hauraki Gulf.

Commercial FishingAuckland City remains extremely concerned about the depletion of fish
stocks and continued degradation of benthic marine environments in the
Hauraki Gulf through the cumulative impact of bulk commercial fishing practices.

Accordingly Council supports the effects of a marine reserve that excludes
commercial fishing in the proposed reserve area. However, Council remains
concerned about the continuing impacts of commercial fishing within the
wider Hauraki Gulf. Of particular concern is the expected displacement
and intensification of commercial fishing as a result of the reserve to
other parts of the Hauraki Gulf, particularly around the south-eastern
coast of Great Barrier Island.

Auckland City believes the Department has to consider and address the
adverse impact a reserve will have on the rest of the Hauraki Gulf and
work with MFish to ensure that fishery management tools, such as an reduction
in permitted commercial fishery quotas for the Hauraki Gulf is implemented.
This approach is again consistent with Auckland City's initiative to have
an overall plan for the provision of marine protected areas within the
Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

Customary and subsistence fishing rightsIn Council's previous submission in 2003, we advised that the Department
needed to give further consideration to the social and economic impacts
of the proposed marine reserve on local residents, particularly those along
the north-east coastline.

Auckland City considers it is important to distinguish between recreational
and subsistence/customary fishing. Due to the relative isolation of Great
Barrier Island, its residents rely heavily on fishing to support and supplement
their diet. The Department has acknowledged this in its offer of an exemption
to allow limited fishing in the reserve by the Mabey and Rope Family Trust.
Council strongly supports this approach.

However, Auckland City is aware of several other landowners and residents
in the vicinity of the reserve, ncluding those adjacent to the Whangapoua
Estuary, who also rely on the ability to fish in the area to supplement
their diet and will be materially affected by the reserve. Auckland City
strongly supports the Department making a similar offer to all landowners
and residents that will be affected by the marine
reserve.
Council is aware that residents and landowners from other parts of
the Island also need to fish in the proposed reserve area to supplement
their diet from time to time. This is particularly necessary when their
fishing is restricted due to inclement weather in other parts of the Gulf
or when competing with recreational fishers during peak seasons. We consider
that there is a case for the Department to consider granting permitted
(limited) fishing rights to these existing landowners and residents.

Auckland City understands that there are at least two possible mechanisms
under the Marine Reserves Act 1971 that could provide for limited subsistence
and customary fishing by existing residents and landowners of Great Barrier
Island, these are under:

Section 3(3) which provides for authorisation to fish within a reserve
by notice in the Gazette given by the Minister, having regard to
the purpose of the reserve (S 3(1)), and with provision for conditions
to be attached in relation to the fishing permitted; and

Section 3(4), which provides for conditions imposed by an order in
Council made under Section 5 of the Act (establishing a Marine Reserve.)

ConsultationAuckland City has significant concerns about the extent and appropriateness
of the consultation undertaken by the Department since receipt of submissions
in March 2003. This concern arises, as there appears to be significant
groups, such as tangata whenua and adjacent landowners (as noted above)
who have not been adequately consulted with, and whose legitimate concerns
remain outstanding.

While the Department appears to have undertaken due consultation process
as required by the current Marine Reserves Act, it is of grave concern
that significant affected parties have not been proactively engaged in
discussions to identify options for resolving potential adverse impacts
on the established way of life and means of support for islanders.

Council expects that where residents and landowners are likely to be
adversely affected by the proposal the Department must negotiate appropriate
outcomes with individual landowners.

Eco-tourism and Visitor Industry benefits to the IslandThe Council is responsible for providing the strategic direction for
the long-term future of the Great Barrier Island, in accordance with the
Community‚s vision for the island. This vision is based around prosperity
generated by an expanded visitor industry catering for active and passive
land and sea based experiences, while being mindful of the need to maintain
the unique character of the island and to provide for the diverse range
of the residents‚ existing lifestyles.

The proposed marine reserve offers the opportunity to:

foster appropriate economic growth on the island through expansion of eco-tourism
enterprises;

strengthen conservation of the natural environment; and

enhance the sense of community on the island

Establishing Great Barrier Island as an eco-tourism destination provides
the opportunity to find the balance between conservation and development
of a sustainable economy on the island. In doing so Council consider that
it is vital that the economic benefits of enhanced eco-tourism opportunities
on Great Barrier Island are managed in such a way that such benefits and
opportunities flow back to and through the Island community.

Auckland City has particular concerns about how the Department will
manage these opportunities especially in relation to the granting of concessions
to commercial operators to work within the marine reserve. The Department
needs to consider the criteria for granting concessions before a reserve
is established and that the granting of any concessions to operate a commercial
operation in the reserve should provide the local community with decision-making
rights and with a possible right of veto.

The economic benefits that will accrue to the Island through continued
investment and re-investment in the Island (for example the building and
management of hotels/motels) by commercial operators with Department concessions
will be considerable and would in the medium to long term create an economic
base for the island to grow and develop from.

However, there is also potential for negative impacts on the local economy
and social fabric of the island in allowing concession holders to operate
in the reserve without investing in the island or having regard to the
island‚s social and economic development. This would be catastrophic and
is inconsistent with the Governments economic growth and social development
goals. Further such an outcome would be in direct conflict with Council‚s
strategic direction for the Island and the Gulf.

Importantly if the Eco-tourism benefits are to be realised the management
and granting of marine reserve concessions needs to be integrated with
land conservation areas on the island. This is important as the granting
of concessions giving exclusive rights of control and management of all
or part of the reserve to a private entity has the potential for restricting
public access to a conservation area through charging mechanisms and other
means such as monopolising access points.

The proposed marine reserve would enhance tourism opportunities and
if managed appropriately is consistent with the promotion of Great Barrier
Island as an eco-tourism destination. However, this will require a recognition
that local economic development takes a significant time and is incremental.

Both the Council and the Department will need to work together with
the local community to facilitate and support the development of eco-tourism
opportunities. The Department of Conservation, Auckland City Council and
visitors to the island, will need to support the local economy in simple
ways such as by purchasing goods and services on the island, where practicable.

By working with the local community and encouraging it to have ownership‚
of the marine reserve, there are likely to be benefits to the Department
which include providing assistance with the monitoring of activities within
the reserve, and community promotion and education of the purpose and benefits
of marine reserves.

RecommendationsAs stated earlier Auckland City is unable to support the Department's
Aotea Marine Reserve Application as the application raises significant
concerns for the Council. If the Department is able to address these concerns
then Council is able to support the Reserve application. To assist the
Department Auckland City has a number of recommendations, which will address
it concerns and reservations.

Consultation

That the Department undertake further consultation with tangata whenua
to discuss the Ngati Rehua Ngati Wai ki Aotea Trust Board‚s outstanding
concerns with an expectation that the Department will work constructively
towards an amicable outcome agreeable to both parties.

That the Department undertake further consultation with all adjoining landowners
and residents, including those adjoining the Whangapoua Estuary, to the
proposed reserve to discuss their concerns, and any practical means by
which these concerns may be over come.

Commercial Fishing

3.That the Department work with MFish to ensure the effects
of displaced commercial fishing in the Hauraki Gulf, resulting from the
establishment of the marine reserve, is managed through a reduction in
commercial fishing quotas for the Hauraki Gulf.

Customary and Subsistence fishing

4.That in recognition of the reliance of Islanders on their
ability to fish in the vicinity of theisland in a subsistence manner that
the Department :

a. Liaise further with those whose land adjoins the reserve,
including those adjoining the Whangapoua Estuary, and provide an exemption
to fish in the reserve on the same basis as that offered to the Mabey and
Rope Families. With the condition that such exemptions will be extinguished
if land is sold.
b.Give consideration to permitting existing landowners and residents
of Great Barrier, including tangata whenua, to fish in the reserve under
a permit system, or other suitable mechanism established by way of a notice
in the Gazette given by the Minister, or a condition on the Order in Council
establishing the marine reserve. Such a permit or other suitable mechanism
could include conditions specifying the location, fishing methods, catch
type and size and number of days allowed in the reserve.

Concessions

5.That the Department ensure that decisions regarding the granting
of concessions rest with a local Island Trust to ensure benefits of development
and services flow in to and through the local community. One option Council
is willing to promote is the establishment of an Island Trust with membership
including local community, tangata whenua and Council.
6.That the Department, together with Auckland City, good faith in partnering
with the Island community and show leadership in supporting the local economy,
in such simple ways such as through purchase of goods and services (for
example fuel) on the island, wherepracticable.

Auckland City would like to thank the Department of Conservation for the
opportunity to make a submission on its application for a marine reserve
for Great Barrier Island. We look forward to the Department addressing
our significant concerns and working with the Department to further develop
a strategic approach to the protection and management of the Hauraki Gulf,
and the implementation of a marine reserve.

The MoU developed between our organisations will provide a foundation
for a co-operative and collaborative relationship to ensure the benefits
of a reserve to the natural environment, the local community and to visitors
are realised.

THE MARINE TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION'S SUBMISSION on the GREAT BARRIER ISLAND
MARINERESERVE

1.IntroductionThe NZ Marine Transport Association thanks you for the opportunity
to
present its submission on the proposed Great Barrier Island marine reserve.
The Marine Transport Association (MTA) represents the national and
regional interests of New Zealand's marine charter, passenger ferry, barging
and aquaculture vessel operators. We have approximately 250
financial members, including most of the industry's leaders. The Association's
members operate in “restricted limits” – i.e. in coastal waters such as
the Hauraki Gulf, Marlborough Sounds or Fiordland, or on inland waterways
such as lakes and rivers.

Because our members are active in both fishing and sightseeing activities
(and on occasion, both in the same business) there is a tension between
those two possibly conflicting activities in the marine environment. However,
this submission intends to meet both sectors' needs and present a unified
approach.

2.What we support in principle in regard to marine reservesWe are concerned about our natural marine resources and support the
use of a range of tools to provide for the protection of the marine environment
and sustainable use of fish and shellfish stocks. There is no doubt
that sections of the coastline should be set aside for scientific study
or public enjoyment of the marine environment in its original state. .
In broad terms we believe they should be in the right place for the right
reasons. However, the marine environment is ever changing and is not now,
nor will it ever be, what it once was. All we can hope for is to improve
conditions. The protection of biodiversity and the protection of unique
or at-risk ecosystems are just two aspects in the overall management of
the resource. Marine Reserves have a place in the suite of tools to responsibly
manage our coastal and marine environment. However, a reserve is simply
one of many tools we can currently use for this purpose.

3.What we don't support in the Great Barrier Island marine
reserve proposalGreat Barrier Island is of significant importance to all of Auckland's
boating public. The proposed reserve off the northeast coast is widely
recognised for its safe anchorages and fine fishing and diving opportunities.
This part of the coast also forms an important part of the commercial rock
lobster fishery for local fishermen and is fished within the sustainable
management of the QMS.

The MTA feels that the proposed marine reserve for Great Barrier Island
is far too large. We don't believe there is sufficient risk and threat
to biodiversity and that there are numerous other tools contained within
a variety of Acts that provide protection to individual species, seabed
and bio-diversity. It would also cover an important area for non commercial
fishers, particularly as this part of the Barrier gives good protection
to smaller craft in the prevailing sou-westerly conditions. This area is
also particularly valued by game fishers who may sometimes have to travel
widely in search of pelagic fish.

Even more important than size is the right choice of boundary. It is logical
that marine reserve boundaries should follow ecological boundaries that
are 'meaningful' to fish. A circle around an island such as the Poor Knights
is such an ideal boundary. The boundary's shape in this proposal is convenient
to humans but insignificant to fish (straight lines, territorial sea, promontories,
etc.).

We see no recognition either of the huge tract of sea floor already covered
by the Navy listening range bordering the southern boundary of the proposed
reserve, and the area covered by the Cable and Pipelines Protection Act
just north of Great Barrier. Fishing is already prohibited or restricted
in this area. It would be far more logical to extend these areas rather
than create a whole new reserve in which recreational fishing is banned.
These areas have never been scientifically researched and yet they have
been untouched for over 40 years.

We are also concerned that the Department of Conservation has admitted
that it cannot effectively mark the Reserve boundaries or that it has the
resources to effect any form of compliance. It is likely that without regular
visits to this isolated area by recreational fishers, particularly responsible
charter boat operators, the area will be vulnerable to poachers. If a concession
regime is proposed for this new reserve, operating a charter vessel out
there will not be economically viable.

We believe too that the large marine reserve already in place at the Poor
Knights Islands protects similar biodiversity and gives the public an ideal
situation closer to the mainland which affords good protection in all weather
conditions. The Poor Knights also has an existing charter boat infrastructure
that facilitates public access to the Reserve.

We also have some concern that a marine reserve at GBI will not assist
in enabling the area to replenish itself since it is in part degrading
due to land-based run off, possibly from the Whangarei Basin and the subsequent
pollution of the marine environment. Measures to increase fish stocks throughout
the Hauraki Gulf and around Great Barrier may be more useful, including
banning netting at least within the Hauraki Marine Park and Bream Bay.

We understand there was a proposal in 1991 which had local support for
a small marine reserve. There does not seem to be local support for the
larger proposal currently under discussion. We would ask why DoC felt the
need to increase the size of the proposed reserve when there is obviously
little support from locals. We are told that larger marine reserves are
more effective at protecting more species and habitats, however, marine
reserves do not protect against land-based pollution and poisonous plankton
blooms - the proposed area has been devastated by this.

Locals have worked hard to protect their coasts with better means than
marine reserves. In 1992 they achieved a 1 mile commercial set net ban
right around the Great Barrier and the Mokohinau Islands, with spectacular
results. A marine reserve will do nothing to the areas outside and it will
not address the causes of the problems. In fact, this proposal may place
a strain on the surrounding areas, as fishers, commercial and non-commercial,
expand out into the surrounding areas. It is reputed that 15 years ago
the Trevally schools were an endless carpet of fish on the surface between
Burgess, Fannel, Navarre and Mario Rocks. Apparently there is now not much
chance of seeing even one good school. The schools may well be so depleted
as to never recover.

Marine reserves do very little for marine biodiversity. They have no benefit
for the non-fished species, or the fished migratory species as they move
in and out of reserves. A reserve will be of benefit only for previously
fished resident species but these can be protected in other ways. Marine
species moving between protected areas will be caught just like those who
live there permanently.

A reserve does indeed protect large, old, and experienced animals which
may have important genetic and social values not protected under fisheries
rules, but there are other ways to achieve this - a closed area /season
for trawling and maximum size restrictions for instance. However, we believe
that even at the Poor Knights such large, old animals have not appeared.

Marine reserves may well seem ideal places for scientific study, education,
snorkelling and diving, underwater photography, swimming, exploring rock
pools and eco-tourism. However, only when there is clear water and safe
and easy access will marine reserves be used by divers, underwater photographers,
eco-tourism and for education. It is reputed that the best dive spots in
Leigh are outside the marine reserve in an unprotected sea.

In fact, this reserve will only be available to some; its position around
the back of the Barrier excludes it from most Auckland based charter vessels
as we believe that the survey limits for these boats will not extend to
the Eastern side of the Barrier. This being the case, only a few boats
will be capable of doing the charters and not many larger sized vessels
have sufficient business at the Barrier to be based there. Smaller vessels
would have to be launched off the beaches on the Eastern side, possibly
near Medland's and outside the Marine reserve, to avoid damaging any sealife.
Vessels departing from the mainland, even from Leigh or Mangawhai which
are probably the closest points, would need to be out overnight.

The Marine Reserves Act provides only one tool - permanent and total closure
for extraction. It is the wrong tool for an area where sustenance fishing
is of major importance. A protected area under the Fisheries Act would
allow many degrees of flexibility to produce the right solution for this
area.

The Department of Conservation has failed to recognise the importance of
access to the north east coast of Great Barrier Island to recreational
sport fishers from the Auckland area who fish for the migratory species
of marlin and tuna. Fishing for these pelagics in no way effects local
biodiversity.

Given the recent shipping exclusion area gazetted around the Poor Knights
from Cape Brett to Bream Head, the extension of the Great Barrier Marine
Reserve out to the territorial 12 mile limit has the potential by default
to push ships transiting our coast further off shore to stay outside the
Marine Reserve. They may also choose to transit inside Great Barrier Island
and out through the Colville Channel across the traditional recreational
and commercial routes to the island from the mainland. To have large foreign-going
ships transiting across these traditional routes will pose a further hazard
to small craft and a greater risk of pollution to the sensitive areas on
the western side of the Barrier and the Hauraki Gulf.

This is an area subject to rapid changes in weather and sea conditions,
unlike any of the Marine Reserves in the Hauraki Gulf, including the area
around Goat Island. There is no VHF radio coverage for channels 1 and 88
due to "shadow" from hills over the inshore waters. This means that boaties
are unable to communicate directly with Coastguard Northern Region in the
event of an incident. In addition, the nearest SAR base is at Tryphena,
at least an hour's travelling in good conditions. This base would be beyond
reach in rough conditions as the search and rescue vessel would be unable
to round the northern or southern extremities of the island. This means
that there is inadequate search and rescue coverage on this coast. Diving
in particular is an inherently dangerous recreation and any accidents require
immediate attention. The remoteness and exposure to weather of the proposed
marine reserve site compounds these risks.

Many visitors come solely to the island in the winter off-season to fish
in the proposed area. The loss of even a small proportion of these people
will have a detrimental impact on both local businesses and ferry operators.
If establishing a marine reserve means that this is a prohibited activity
there could be severe consequences for the island's economy.

4.ConclusionWe have no option but to oppose the proposal in its entirety. We do
not feel DOC has presented appropriate evidence or provided the cost benefit
analysis that would warrant a proposal of such magnitude.

We suggest that since much of the time it is not possible to get to
the north-east side of the island because of weather conditions, that around
Arid Island, out to approximately half way to Harataonga, would be more
suitable for the proposed reserve. A reserve at Arid Island could include
provision for the families currently living there to be able to fish for
sustenance, with that privilege ceasing as their tenure comes to an end.

The Association welcomes the opportunity to make this submission and
asks to be heard in support of it.